Yeah I am surprised more people are ignoring this. If the two computer models have identical chips, then why does Apple even bother putting a fan in the pro?
To me the fact that the Air is fanless and the pro has a fan would indicate to me that they have different clock rates on the high end. I am sure the Air is capped lower than the Pro in order to make sure it doesn't overheat. It is probably a firmware lock, and the hardware is identical. But once we do benchmarks I would expect that the pro outperforms the air by a good margin. They added a fan in the pro so that it can reach higher speeds.
Surely the Air is capped so that users don't ruin their computers by running a process that overheats the computer.
But of course Apple doesn't want to reveal clock speeds. The best they can give us is "5x faster than the best selling PC in its class". What does that mean? The $250 computer at Walmart that sells like hotcakes for elementary age kids that need a zoom computer or the Lenovo Thinkpad Pro that business buy by the pallet? Who the hell knows.
The fan is only there for sustained loads. They all have identical chips (aside from the 7 core gpu option Air). They all hit the same pstates and then throttle accordingly due to temperature.
The MBP and Mini are there for people who want maximum sustained performance.
I agree that having this tethered to a stationary hub inhibits the scope of this being a device which can be worn anywhere.
If anything I could see the iPhone acting as the hub (for the first few generations at least) in the same way the iPhone is the hub for the Apple Watch. Not sure what protocol they would use to communicate, Bluetooth doesn't have the bandwidth and Wifi is still a power hog.
He said a million self driving vehicles would be on the streets a year from FSD day.
To try to say the hardware for FSD is now present in 1M vehicles (which I doubt) is disingenuous to the insinuation Elon made that FSD is right around the corner. They're not meaningfully closer to FSD today than they were three years ago. Somewhat closer? Sure. A few feet on a journey that's a few miles though.
> They're not meaningfully closer to FSD today than they were three years ago.
Actually driving a Tesla for 15,000 miles, of which perhaps 5,000 of those miles have been AP over the last 18 months, I can state this is totally false.
There has been extremely significant incremental progress with AP which is totally evident in everyday usage.
Looking at how much has happened over the last two months though it seems that they are on the verge of something big. I'm on pins just waiting for stop light and stop sign detection to be integrated into lane keeping. They're already seeing them, they just need to put that data into action. In terms of my personal driving that'll be pretty big, road trips get a lot shorter when my attention isn't forced.
Turns through intersections is another area where Tesla's current implementation needs a lot of help (read: can barely do it at all) but should be within range soon given where they are at. And lane splits in city streets is definitely something the Tesla implementation is going to need to get better at before really making it door-to-door.
It's a very exciting, even historic time for self driving.
But yeah, taxi fleets are a ways out. There's a turn in the road just a 1/2 mile from my house where my Model 3 gives up every time.
Deep in large cities (New York, San Francisco, etc) with all the RF reflections can actually be quite challenging for GPS. Challenging == actually terrible and everyone knows it. Off by blocks, and definitely no help at all for vertical location.
And inaccuracy at start-up is also surprisingly challenging; think a person requesting a car within 5 seconds of opening the app, before the location service of the device has really resolved the location, thus ending up with a pick-up pin that is a hundred feet wrong or more. And maybe on the wrong side of a street, fence, etc.
There's also issues like Australia, which because of plate tectonics the maps corresponding to GPS coordinates had to recently be moved close to a meter.
We think of GPS as just the positioning part, but its just as important to remember that there is a large amount of work to translate that position into a meaningful data point within each given country. Just knowing someones exact GPS coordinates isn't helpful.
Have you ever used Google Maps in a country like Costa Rica? Because the country isn't mapped to nearly the same degree (also, they have a habit of not even naming their roads), it becomes barely useful. I'm not talking about the technology of global positioning, I'm referring to all of what we take for granted with it for.
Which of the two has a trillion dollar market cap with monopoly like market share in multiple business to consumer product sectors?
There’s nothing novel about what Epic or any other B2B enterprise software company does (for the most part), other than total addressable market (and profits) being far smaller than the B2C FAANG giants - the market caps reflect this as well.
Right. And while Epic does the heavy lifting of crafting software to support healthcare provider workflows, integrating dissimilar systems (PACS, etc.), and storing all that data, the companies you mentioned feel they can create value by attempting to automate diagnosis and potentially offer some integration point for genetic counseling.
As a physician forced to use Epic, I'm not sure "crafted" is the word I'd use to describe their software. It's more like they addressed the spec from the C suite in a way that was equivalent to punching health care providers in the face. They take Dad's money, and use it to pay thugs to beat up his kids.
I have not used all of them, but every one of them I've touched is hot garbage. Like much enterprise software, the people who decide to buy it are not the people that use it. It would seem, from the outside looking in, that the majority of the effort goes into maximizing billing in the byzantine world of US insurance rather than the work of actually making people well.
What concerns me most about the larger players in the field is their dedication to minimizing interoperability to lock people into their software.
A few years ago I did a very thorough analysis of every dose-based electronic prescribing system suitable for secondary care available in the UK market (and several which were not officially). They fell into three categories:
- Home-grown systems which were fit for purpose but not operable or available outside the organisation for which they were designed. The Birmingham (UK) University Hospitals system [1] is a great example of these.
- "Enterprise" (pejorative) systems which generally came from the US and focused almost entirely on billing capture, and had almost no thought put into clinicians workflow. This encompassed Epic, Cerner Millenium and so forth.
- "New" systems which were UX first, but were often little more than front-end mockups. A good example was "Alert", a Portuguese system written in Flash which had almost nothing in the way of basic medicine management safeguards, and the team demonstrated zero aptitude for the ability to build them.
In the end the hospital in question used paper-based prescribing.
I know that Epic was hiring UX designers a few years ago. I didn't make it through their interview process, but I'm kind of glad I didn't due to the invasive nature of the remote test that I had to take.
They wanted my high school GPA and SAT scores to complete my application. I had my bachelor's, and 12 years of experience at the time. After moving to Madison, was glad I refused to give that info. They like their implementation teams right out of school, and work them to death
I’ve recently experienced two hospitals’ EMR systems (one using Epic, the other Cerner) from the patient’s perspective. Integrating/accessing my data from external systems (in my case Apple Health) is roughly equivalent–the important things are (mostly) there like test results, procedures, medications, etc; they just do some things differently that are annoying:
* The Cerner hospital will duplicate medications for a single visit. It also classifies a bunch of vital signs as lab test results, so things like blood pressure don’t get merged in with other sources of data.
* The Epic system seems to use more recent/complex FHIR structures, so occasionally there’ll be more info in the raw data (this is more a knock on Apple Health though).
The Epic system has a big advantage with MyChart though. It’s their app and website for accessing your records at various hospitals. Through the app you can get push notifications of test results and schedule procedures. The latter was nice as I’d get roughly 15-30 minutes of advance notice before having a procedure done. The discharge instructions being made available in the app is also very helpful. Finally, being able to browse the raw clinical notes through the website, and request a dump of all of my data is appreciated.
It depends on the setting. In a hospital (or hospital-owned primary care), the EMR generally reflects the top heavy administration. You end up with a billing system masquerading as an EHR.
In an independent practice, there are more options, and some are quite good (I work for one that I happen to think is pretty great in that regard, and most of our users seem to agree)
My favorite so far, honestly, are the old military systems, CoPath and CHCS, with a terminal interface running on OpenVMS. They have are lightening fast to use for anyone who is actually in the business of getting things done (new users are sad for a couple weeks, but experienced hands are fast. Lots of keyboard shortcuts) and easy to pull data from when it comes to research.
One of my first jobs was a software dev at Cerner. Cerner isn't much better.
EMR is a difficult field to "disrupt" IMO because a hospital comprises so many departments with wildly different requirements for a software system, that it's basically only the big players who can do it all. And if you're a CIO for a hospital looking for an EMR system to purchase, one system that handles everything sounds much more appealing than trying to cobble together something yourself.
It's also why there's only a few major ERP players.
Not a physician but I previously did "unauthorized integrations" with health care systems for doctors to get their data out of systems without APIs
Epic was by far the jankiest. i.e. if you tried to cancel a recurring appointment the wrong way it crashed the entire system. Athena and Nextech were among the least disliked
Keep in mind your priorities are very different from your employer's. Healthcare systems have been on a big kick to reign in physician independence, and EMRs are effective tools in this goal.
The point is that it doesn't make much sense to avoid Google - for the reason that it's a giant with too much power - when Microsoft and Amazon are just as big, and also have healthcare businesslines.
There are so many interesting ways of getting / staying fit. Rock Climbing, Skiing, Mountain Biking, Hiking. They often involve going to beautiful locations or at the very least getting out of the city.
Why you would suggest the gym (repetitive activity with a load of other sweaty people) is beyond me...
Do both! But I will certainly always advocate for increasing physical health. It has an absolutely amazing ability to increase your own happiness and mood. I can confirm with myself as a single anecdote. :)
The point of all of this intervention is to increase the well being of the individual through higher wages (specifically, purchasing power) relative to our global peers. The same sort of wage growth that happened organically in the US for most of the 19th and 20th century.
"You have to take into consideration what kind of workloads lead to throttling."
I'm driving four displays at work with Windows 10 (two 21.5' 1080p monitors, my laptop flipped open, and an iPad Pro 12.9 connected via USB C running Duet Display) and my idle desktop CPU utilization hovers around 15-20%. Having Outlook and Chrome open gets it into the mid 30s. This is a four core i7 Dell Latitude 7490 with 16GB memory and an NVMe drive that I was given in May 2019.
Yes, all the OS/applications I'm using are resource hogs but I'm not even doing software development - this is all business analyst work. Seeing that the general trend of applications/OS will continue to be resource hogs, let's hope that six core thermal chassis design for 14' ultrabooks is figured out in the next two or three years.
Throttling is what happens when your CPU stays at 100% for a long time. Perhaps you could describe the part of your workload that exhibits that behavior, rather than describe a workload that is obviously not causing thermal throttling?
We're talking about the current state of the real market here, not abstract hypotheticals. Laptops overheating at 30% CPU usage is not a widespread issue in the real world; to a first approximation, the only way to get an ultrabook's CPU to thermally throttle is to keep at least one of its cores completely busy so that the processor stays in its boost state long enough to pump out serious thermal energy. Bursty workloads give the CPU too many opportunities to cool off.
We live in a golden age of fraud. Look up $PEN, $OSTK, pretty much anything published by Muddy Waters.